rrl - 1:57 pm on Aug 16, 2002 (gmt 0)

Well, let's be clear about something, google uses a software program, it's not omnicient; nor is it capable of any kind of thought for that matter. It has no way of evaluating whether content is good or bad. It only works with the parameters given, which I think are simplistic and too easy to spoof. I can give you example after example of the top ranked site looking pretty much the same.

Put a huge amount of content on your home page with very simple html and tons of links. Google's "evaluation" of good content is nothing more than giving higher marks to these kinds of sites.

This has nothing to do with the google's software rubbing its chin, saying "hmmmm, this is a quality site" or any silly stuff like that. I can take any topic, write a 10,000 word home page, link to 200 sites of similar subject matter and Google would consider it to be the best site. For many subject matters, there aren't going to be many inbound links because they're commercial sites and not informational. When that happens, all you really need are a few inbound (create your own network) and go crazy on the outbound, particularly to any high ranking sites.

While I like this search engine, like I said, their approach is simplistic. I get aggravated looking at empty lawyer directories that have the top spot for no other reason than they link all of their 150 or so regional directories together using hidden links and use their keywords at the bottom of the page in just slightly darker than the background color a few dozen times.

Need examples? I'd be happy to provide them. These are not the high quality sites you're referencing that the mighty google bot has blessed.